|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time article.|
|Time has been listed as a level-2 vital article in an unknown topic. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Time is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|Current status: Former featured article candidate|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 30 days may be archived by.|
Timeframe and time frame redirect here, but the article doesn't explain the concept. IMO we should either add a section explaining what a timeframe is, or point the redirect to a page which actually explains the topic (such as Wiktionary:Time Frame). -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the later is a good idea: redirect to the wiktionary page. But that may be because I lack insight into what a longer section of this article would say about it. The definition seems complete, and I don't think there is a lot more to say about it. But if there is maybe you could sandbox it here and we could add it.
Delineating the topic "Time"
I said at Talk:Time (disambiguation)#Issues of lead & overall structure that the lead entry at the Dab page had to closely reflect the lead on the accompany primary topic article, but then got out ahead of myself by composing
-- to replace the IMO clearly unacceptable Dab lead that reads
- Time is a common term for the experience of duration and a fundamental quantity of measuring systems.
-- this tentative Dab-page lead entry:
- Time is the domain of knowledge concerning the ordering of events, and measurement of non-spatial separation among events, neglecting the considerations introduced by the physics of relativity.
which i regard as also doing a better job of capturing the scope of the accompanying article Time than does its current lead sent (which reads)
- Time is a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them.
(Note that my approach would continue the current partitioning off of a separate article Time in physics (or something with about the same scope, even if with a different title), which, i should think, deserves mention in Time essentially only by a sentence or short 'graph including that link.)
I can imagine meeting some anticipable objections with an odd-looking (but i think well-accepted) structural approach, that may offend users' intuitions less: letting Time redirect to Time (classical conceptions), or Time (pre-relativistic conceptions). That would reflect the fact that while most people don't think about relativity when they say "time", there is an ambiguity between "time" in the sense most people mean and "time" (what is in almost everyone's experience adequately described by classical conceptions, but in a strict sense doesn't exist at all bcz all this/that matter keeps anything from actually behaving exactly as classical dynamics describes.) That classical-time article of course would need a HatNote like
- This article is about time as described by classical physics. See also Time in relativistic physics.
(or even, if you have the guts for it!)
- ... See also Time in physics.
- I did the best i could on the Dab, but i'm still not satisfied with the Dab handling of the articles Time and Time in physics, whose topics overlap in ways very poorly captured by their titles.
--Jerzy•t 10:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"Time is often referred to as the fourth dimension,,,"
This vapid idea ought to be scrapped rather than perpetuated. Obviously time is a dimension of existence, ( a 3-dimensional object has no detectable physical reality if it does not exist for a finite duration) but not of space. Parrot-fashion repetition of it implies: 1) The Post Office could evaluate the postage of a parcel from the data that it measures 3x4x5 cm, and is scheduled to last 6 hours. Or 2)"Since there could not possibly exist a 4th dimension of space, we must be talking of something else in disguise". A refusal to admit the possibility of what is difficult to conceive.220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where does the article say that time is a dimension of space? NebY (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
History of our clock time measurement system in this article is poor
The section on the history of the calendar is pretty good. Of course how we get 365 days in a year is also simple to understand, as both the day (noon to noon) and year (equinox to equinox) are simple observations that all cultures can make.
The history of why the day is divided into 24 hours and not some other number is not very well described. The article on clocks has a little better description, but still not as good as the calendar portion above.
The article has these sections:
- History of the calendar
- History of time measurement devices
Right there you see the problem. The "History of the Calendar" is about how we came to have our current calendar. Logically there should follow a "History of the clock". It would also be about the abstract ideas (that there are 24 hours, that they are divided into AM and PM, that the counting of them begins with 12 -- these are all very strange things, unlike any other measurement system, and not explained here) and not the devices used to measure it.
Perhaps using the term "History of the Clock" would be confusing so one could label it "History of the Division of the day into smaller units" (And the symetrical "History of the Calendar is logically "History of the Division of the year into smaller units".)
In other words there is both a abstract and physical manifestation of the division of time for both the periods of greater than a day, and those less than a day. (It does not take much technology to "build" a calendar, so there is no need for a separate section on it. Any writing system will do.)